Parcel Ban: Add "Deny by age"

Here's my variation on the old "Deny by....." debate.

Deny access to land parcels by AGE, on the "About Land" > "Ban" tab. For example:

Deny access to anyone under: [_] 30 days [_] 60 days [_] 90 days [_] 120 days

in addition to "deny by payment status"

*Edit*
Just to avoid confusion, this is referencing account age, not RL age...
*/edit*

FAIRNESS:
I believe this option is FAIR and applies equally to EVERYONE regardless of country of origin or payment ability.

REASONING:
1) Some people need an adjustment time to get used how things work
in SL, the social ettiquette of talking to people (and *cough* how
NOT to talk to people *cough*).

2) Not everyone wants to block all unverifieds because they have
friends who are unverified, or know several nice people who
are unverified and know that not all unverifieds are a problem.
(Despite vocal complaints to the contrary)

3) This feature will also reduce the load on the ban lists of people who haven't
outright banned all unverifieds, as I've seen a lot of griefing done by
users with new or recent accounts.

4) It is my believe that anyone over, say, 90 days who's serious about
the SL experience - and doing things in SL - who is still a griefer after that
timeframe has elapsed will be more likely to be a long-term griefer and can
be easily added to parcel ban lists at that time.


*Edit*
Feature vote here:
https://secure-web4.secondlife.com/vote/vote.php?get_id=2691
*/edit*

My hubby pointed out that an option to manually enter the age limit in days might be preferred for some people, so I'm adding the idea here to see what people think.

It would be a good option but the main problem is that with the current policy LL has of no payment info necessary, it would be impossible to tell who is a minor or not. They are hardly going to admit to it if they are on the main grid where they shouldn't be.

Hmm, this hurts newbies even more though, the issue really is stopping the idiots getting in in the first place, not applying such zealous security that legit players are hurt by it and can't get into half the places in the world.
We need to remove unverified sign-ups and add more verification options, or allow some kind of demo period if someone doesn't want to verify right-away, but limit their options so they can get a taster without causing harm.

Unfortunately, days of RL time doesn't equal days of SL time. It would be nice to see "days of SL time" as an attribute -- but ya can't have everything.

If you're going to do this, how about an option to "deny access for people OVER xxx days"... it occurs to me places like The Shelter or the Gnubie Store or places running money trees might benefit. Heck, Linden Labs could just make Orientation Island one of them.

I vote for "expand Orientation Island into a demo grid, and require payment info or sponsorship before you can get out of it".

Agreed, best idea ever heard, but really... I should be wishing some lindens reading this.

But I know plenty of "oldbies" that frequent those places to help out newbies, or just show their friends a place to get stuff. As well, don't money trees require donations from people who actually HAVE money (i.e. non-newbs)?

Possible option....
[ ] Only allow those between [_____] and [_____] days old.
---- [ ] Except for those with payment info on file.

Mmmm, what bans really need is a list of rules that go like this :
Allow/Ban..... [critera]

E.g. :
1) Allow everyone in my group.
2) Allow everyone who'se verified.
3) Allow everyone who'se over 1 day old.
4) Block everyone else.
Translation : allow anyone who'se in the group, verified, OR 1 day old.
or...

1) Block people in a certain bad group.
2) Allow people who are verified.
3) Block people who are under 1 day old.
4) Allow everyone else.
Translation : block people in badgroup, allow people who are verified but not in the bad group, block unverifieds not in the bad group who are also under 1 day old, and then allow everyone else.

In short, an evaluated rule list.
Of course, this would be hell to implement on LL's side and we're unlikely ever to see this in an application they want to be broadly used, because it is too complex for most people.
Perhaps this could be an 'advanced configuration' option... for power users.

In the short term, and more realistically, we could have :
** Block people more than ____ days old
** Block people less than ____ days old
* Allow those with payment info on file to bypass the above two restrictions? [Y/N]

That'd let you block unverified accounts under 1-2 days old... perfect for stopping 'impulse griefing', with only minimal damage to unverifieds. Frankly, the only way to stop griefer accounts is to require some kind of comittment to SL from your guests... be that:
* days since account was born
* total hours the account has been used in SL
* payment info status
* being referred/vouched for by an existing member in good standing (who will lose their ability to refer people in future if one of the people they refer gets banned)

That is quite unfair to some people who dont want to share certain info with the rest of the world.

this would dramaticly decrease the amount of people who play sl. remember everyone has theirs own intrests even if its griefing. by banning people who are not of sl age this will discourage them to associate themselevs later on with those who shunned them from the place. and there should be no need for verification. even if people under age are playing the will wither play for a day get bored of getting banned then go away or learn from there suroundings and mature some because have u seen teen sl my lil bro tried it and he said it was just mass chaos with people shooting at everyone, building things everywhere, and trying to leaving the land a mess.

Actually, the kind of "add one rule at a time" list like iTunes smart playlists use is very easy to implement... I've done it now and then and even for a cripplewing environment like HTML where you have to use a backchannel to pass the updated list around it's an afternoon's work.

ACCESS LIST:
 Allow access to this parcel if any of these rules apply:
      Avatar [is a member of] [Good Guys Group] (+)
    +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Avatar is a member of My Friends
    | Avatar is at least 30 days old
    | ...
    +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Delete) selected rules

BAN LIST:
 Deny access to this parcel if any of these rules apply:
      Avatar [has no payment information on file] [   ] (+)
    +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    | Avatar is not Griefer Alt 
    | Avatar is not Ima Griefer
    | ...
    +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (Delete) selected rules

And the downside is?

So who is to impart the social norms of SL to new players if not you? The Liaisons? Solitude? Someone other than you?

I've known people who were playing months before I joined and they were widly recognized as flaming jerks; registration time is not proportional to common decency.

Good point, Malachi.

Richard, we're not talking about RL age, just the date people joined SL (which is already public info -- just look at anyone's profile).

It would be a pretty blunt tool, as pointed out above.

OMG!!! H*** must be freezing over! I actually agree with Argent for a change

I think banning by avatar age is probably a good way to get me to avoid going into your parcel, regardless of the fact that my account is over 2 years old and I'd probably fit your requirements. Nevertheless, you can do this now, if you want, without us wasting LL's time making them implement this.

You can check an av's age via a script using the llRequestAgentData(key, DATA_BORN) call. Run this on everyone who shows up, and for anyone who doesn't fit your requirements for agedness, add them temporarily to the ban list using llAddToParcelBanList. If they keep showing up, make the ban permanent.

And this would be bad...how? The grid is OVERSTRESSED with the number of accounts and the number of simultaneous logins. I'd pay my right--ok, maybe just my left--arm to see the number logged on cut in half until the servers get better.
I've been in a sim where the time dilation flickered between 0.00 and 0.01 (all server side fps rates being between 0 and 1). And there weren't 40 avatars there.

Still not big on having a demo grid like that, it could miss out a TON of content that might be exactly what is needed to get various people to stay. For example furry stuff hooked me to start with until I got into scripting.
What if accounts in demo mode were fully functional and accessed the main-grid, but don't have any functions that could directly 'harm' an avatar? ie no push, scripts can't create objects etc except in certain portions of the demo area? Similarly they can't fly (to prevent skybox snooping/stalking) outside of the demo area. So they have a demo area where they can try everything, but outside of it they can explore, and interact on the basic level. So it's both the demo-grid idea AND the nerfed but functional main-grid accounts in one
It's just that no matter how well designed the demo area is, it's going to miss things, especially adult stuff which is of course a huge lure for many people (since orientation island is PG area iirc). So if they can still go looking for stuff, then the whole world becomes a demo as well, so long as they can't cause harm there then it's fine.

You're right in that it's not a perfect solution - but NOTHING is a perfect solution anymore.

A LOT of people are flaming jerks in their first few days/weeks - the ones that CONTINUE to be flaming jerks can always be added to ban lists after that point.




I was actually meaning account age - visible in the profile - rather than RL age. You're right about it being hard to tell who's actually a minor or not. I apologize for not being specific enough the first time around (hence the edits).


Yes, but it does not unfairly discriminate against one group of newbies over another group of newbies (such as the "payment info on file" seems to, by all the howling about it) - it applies equally to all.

Yes, it's a pain in the arse.
Yes, it makes life difficult for newbies in any location that uses this option.
but, it applies equally, regardless of financial circumstances or country of origin.

This just makes it a matter of time, even for members in countries with little online payment options available, or for people in any country who are just starting out on their own (i.e. "I just turned 18 and I'm moooving out!".



I would *LOVE* this idea.



I'm not a scriptor, so I didn't know you could do that and then do a parcel ban from the received information. Thanks though, that may come in handy even if my suggestion doesn't get implemented.

/agreed

Hrm, but denying no payment info on file at least has the merit that it only blocks people avatars that have backed out of providing a Credit Card number (and thus cannot be held accountable for their actions).

I dunno, the idea itself isn't fundamentally bad, but it along with the other "deny because" features are just little-used tools for land-owners that don't really solve the problem. They'd maybe be handy to create land for specific people if you want to be a premium only 'club' or something, but to prevent griefing they aren't the best of tools as they hurt well-intentioned people.

Perhaps if the minimum age only applied to no payment info on file, or if there was a minimum age for each 'level'? So the minimum age for no info might be 30 days, for info used maybe 7 days.

Of course.. someone needs to point out that no one without payment info on file, can post to this thread. (not even sure they can read it).

Frankly, the problem isn't new people.. the problem is annoying people. And most annoying people aren't new, they just spawned a new account with which to be annoying. How many greifers can register one account a day for a month, waiting for them to become ripe. Then they use a 30 day old account, with a 29 day old account waiting for tomorrow's adventures.

"legislating around the problem" is always going to hurt people. Banning new members from your land is nearly insane. Especially if you own a shop of some kind. Banning people who have no credit card on file is just as silly, because they could be a very successful escort who makes 1k L$ an hour. AT the end of the day, erecting bans of this nature will just leave you alone and paranoid.

"health" almost doesn't exist at this point on the grid. There are sheilding tools that can be purchased to stop most "attacks". Sitting down will make you invulnerable almost every attack. When someone is being a pest.. ban them. But I'll tell you...

Some of my best customers have been less than 3 days old. Very often some specially rolled up alt of a previous customer, who has come to me for "another whatever". MOst noobs are generally nice. Ususally way in over their heads, and just need someone to take the time to help them out. Most of them are pretty lonely. Remember.. we all have our cliques of friends now, and our hundred-member friends lists, and our groups of people to chat with.. These people are bored, and lonely enough that they figured "I know, I'll try that game I read about in newsweek".

The problem is that land owners do not have an IP ban available to them, or a MAC address ban. If they did.. they could just ban a greifer from their land, and know that they wouldn't be back unless they were really super crazy determined.. and most greifers are just looking for someone to torment. Unless it's a grudge issue, a ban like that would be all that was really needed.

Oh, and as regards the idea of banning people older than X from newbie places....

What about the guy who tried it once or twice, then put the game up for 2 months, then fired it back up? and what about the girls who have spent months playing house, and dress up, shopping and preening and whatnot, and FINALLY get around to wanting to learn how to build?

Good call, good point. I withdraw any implied support for this proposal, with or without my suggested Logans-Run style "Death Day".

I'd still like a better 'language' for describing the access controls, like the dialogs I described above.